The United States is one of the last industrialized nations with capital punishment, among communist countries, such as North Korea.

Contention 1: The death penalty is barbaric. The authorized obliteration of one's life is morally wrong. The reasoning, behind the delusion that the state must murder in order to show that murder is wrong, is completely asinine.

Contention 2: The death penalty costs an exorbitant amount of money, while life without parole costs much less.

The state and counties invest on average $741,000 over 16 years to execute a 30-year-old offender condemned to capital punishment, according to the Legislative Service Bureau. This figure includes the expenses of jail costs, prosecutor's and defender's fees from murder trial through appeals, and execution costs.

It costs states and counties $622,000 to lock up someone for life, approximated to be 47 years in prison. That includes appeals, which aren't automatically triggered as is the case with death penalty cases, as well as health care costs. It costs $506,000 to imprison someone sentenced to 65 years with a 50 % reduction for good behavior.

Contention 3: The death penalty is not a deterrent. In a survey that the New York Times conducted in 2000, it was discovered that the homicidal rate in states with the death penalty had been 48 to 101% higher than states without the death penalty.

The homicidal rate in states without capital punishment has remained consistently lower than states with instated capital punishment.

In deterrence studies, there are improper statistical errors and missing data and variables vital to giving a full picture of the criminal justice system. These studies are just not within the bounds of credibility.

Contention 4: The death penalty singles out the poor. The indigent can not afford proper representation and attorneys are appointed by the courts. A case takes 700-1000 hours to defend, and it is costly to find an adequate lawyer that will devote this time to an individual case. In areas where crime is abundant, courts don't have the capital to appoint proper representation. For this reason, courts often appoint attorneys that are "ill trained".

In some cases, court appointed attorneys are allotted less than the minimum wage by the courts. For this reason, attorneys are unmotivated to invest the huge amount of time necessary to defend a case.

The wealthy are generally spared the death penalty, because they can afford their own representation have many exclusive resources at their disposal, such as private investigation, DNA research, etc. In the OJ Simpson case, not only could he afford a "Dream Team" of lawyers, but he could also finance a DNA testing lab of his own. He was able to expose every error in the prosecution's DNA evidence. As a result, he was acquitted.

1. This is such a cliched misconception. There is a defining line between a violent crime and a punishment: the motive and reasoning behind it. Abolitionists such as yourself only see the physical similarities of the death penalty and murders, but fail to see the moral aspect. Would you condemn a father from spanking a child because the child kicked his brother? Of course not, unless the father were to be an abusive or irrational one, we would agree that his treatment was appropriate. There wasn't malignant thoughts of payback in the father's mind, but rather of the wish to morally correct his son. Would you connect charging taxes and fines with extortion? In the same way these pairs are distinguished, so is the death penalty and offenders.

This is a concept of retributive justice: let the punishment fit the crime. Yet, I would argue for a mix of utilitarian reasoning. Not only is it a means of justice that looks backward, to psychological and emotional benefits for the victims, but looks forward such as future social benefits.

2. This argument would work assuming that life without parole would be morally equated or more justified than the death penalty. As a proponent of the death penalty, I am not arguing the death penalty should be kept because of economic reasons purely.

The common mistake for abolitionists is that they equate all LWOP (life without parole) cases with all DP (death penalty) cases. It is only valid of the same category of offense is committed, which is not always the case. The February 7th ,1994 issue of Times magazine showed average cell costs to be around the $24,000/yr. and the maximum security cell cost is $75,000/yr.

The majority of DP case costs are based on appeals, as are LWOP. A significant cost difference should not be seen. Even if DP cases DO cost more, reducing many useless and costly appeal cases that delay trials rather than decide whether one is innocent or not could be beneficial.

There are many other benefits also, in terms of "cost". Not only monetarily, but the incentive of pleading guilty and testifying against others, etc. can be very beneficial if a DP were to be in the scenario.

3. There are many things to take into mind when dealing with such statistics.

"The homicidal rate in states without capital punishment has remained consistently lower than states with instated capital punishment."

-The test for deterrence is not whether executions produce lower murder rates, but that executions produce fewer murders than if the death penalty did not exist.

Now about deference and statistics.

-The Thuggees were one of the worst gangs in history. They plagued Indian villages and merchants for hundreds of years. When the British empire came into power, they instated fast arrested and executions. Stemming from so many hangings, the Thuggees were eventually suppressed and eliminated with, deterring many new incomers. This is historical evidence for the deterrence power of a DP.

-During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. In 1960, there were 56 executions in the USA and 9,140 murders. By 1964, when there were only 15 executions, the number of murders had risen to 9,250. In 1969, there were no executions and 14,590 murders, and 1975, after six more years without executions, 20,510 murders occurred rising to 23,040 in 1980 after only two executions since 1976. In summary, between 1965 and 1980, the number of annual murders in the United States skyrocketed from 9,960 to 23,040, a 131 percent increase. The murder rate -- homicides per 100,000 persons -- doubled from 5.1 to 10.2. So the number of murders grew as the number of executions shrank. [2] As you can see, this deterrence effect is valid since it shows the difference when DP was instated and when it was not.

-There is the deterrence in the fact that the murderer or rapist will never do his crime again. There have been a plethora of cases of escaped or released convicts from LWOP, and whom have continued their killing spree until being caught once again. DP would save many potential innocent lives.

-In prisons, there are many murders and crimes that go on inside as well, prison guards are the unsung heroes. Executing dangerous criminals would prevent murders, and even the formation of gangs by their influence.

-There is one major obstacle for both you and me when dealing with deterrence statistics, correlation doesn't imply causation. Even if this were to dismiss all our statistics, the fact that executing dangerous criminals saves potential innocent lives is not disputed.

4. This is a void argument. The flaw in this would not be on the DP, but on our imperfect law system. Even with LWOP instated, or any other kind of case, it well known that those who are rich and can higher better lawyers will do better than the poor one who will at most get a court appointed attorney. Ways to solve this is to increase the court appointed attorney's salary.

*Conclusion*

The death penalty is an effective and moral tool for use on dangerous criminals. It is economically sound, and "singling out poor people" isn't a problem of DP, but of the law system. This is why I an urge a vote for Con.

---References---
1. Stuart Banner, "The Death Penalty: An American History", Harvard Univ Pr, March 2002
2. Robert Tanner, "Studies Claim Death Penalty is a Deterrent", Democrat and Chronicle, June 12, 2007

"1. This is such a cliched misconception. There is a defining line between a violent crime and a punishment: the motive and reasoning behind it. Abolitionists such as yourself only see the physical similarities of the death penalty and murders, but fail to see the moral aspect. Would you condemn a father from spanking a child because the child kicked his brother? Of course not, unless the father were to be an abusive or irrational one, we would agree that his treatment was appropriate. There wasn't malignant thoughts of payback in the father's mind, but rather of the wish to morally correct his son. Would you connect charging taxes and fines with extortion? In the same way these pairs are distinguished, so is the death penalty and offenders."

1. My point is, the idea that killing people in order to set the example that killing is wrong, is completely illogical.

The state, by implementing capital punishment, lowers its standard to the mentality of the killer.

There is a slight difference between spanking a child and murdering someone. Spanking a child, if implemented fairly and rationally, is meant to correct a behavior and prevent later occurrences of a behavior. Capital punishment is the irreversible act of putting someone to death. I think that these are distinguishable.

Now, you may argue that by putting prisoner to death, we are showing potential murderers the consequences of their actions, but here is another logical flaw that I would like to point out. For this to be true, you would have to assume that murderers are logical, rational people.

2. It have been proven true that capital punishment costs more than incarceration for life.

-At the trial level in Washington, the death penalty cost approximately $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense, more than "the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty" and costs from $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel.
-In Washington, on direct appeal, the cost of appellate defense is a significant $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases.
-In addition, Personal restraint petitions filed during the course of death penalty cases on averages $137,000 more in public defense costs.

-In New Jersey, tax payers paid more than a quarter of a billion dollars on the death penalty in a 23 year span. There had been 197 capital trials in New Jersey and 60 death sentences, 50 of which were overturned.

In Tennessee, the death penalty trials cost, on average, 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life incarceration without parole.

"- Tennessee District Attorneys General are not consistent in their pursuit of the death penalty.
- Surveys and interviews of district attorneys indicate that some prosecutors "use the death penalty as a 'bargaining chip' to secure plea bargains for lesser sentences."
- Previous research provides no clear indication whether the death penalty acts as a method of crime prevention.
- The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals reversed 29 percent of capital cases on direct appeal.
- Although any traumatic trial may cause stress and pain for jurors, the victims' family, and the defendant's family, the pressure may be at its peak during death penalty trials. (July 2004)"

In Kansas, the death penalty expenses are a whopping 70% than none death penalty cases.
In a study conducted, death penalty case costs counted, from the beginning of the process to execution, and it was found that the median death penalty case costs $1.26 million. Non-death penalty cases were counted from the beginning of the process to the end of incarceration and were found to have a median cost of $740,000.

That $1.26 million includes
Appeals = 29% of the total expense
the pre-trial and trial level expenses= 40% of total expenses
The incarceration and execution = 22% of total expenses

Here are some facts:

" * The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.
* The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).
* The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater.
* The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case.
* Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days."

I could easily continue to elaborate on all of the different studies and information collected.

"-The Thuggees were one of the worst gangs in history. They plagued Indian villages and merchants for hundreds of years. When the British empire came into power, they instated fast arrested and executions. Stemming from so many hangings, the Thuggees were eventually suppressed and eliminated with, deterring many new incomers. This is historical evidence for the deterrence power of a DP."

Um...moot point. Police eliminated and stifled members of the group by pursuing them and hanging them. The penalty did not prevent the crimes from ever being committed.

Social science has already discredited the misconception that the death penalty is a deterrent. Most crimes are committed as an act of blind impulse, with little thought given to the consequences. These crimes are committed in the heat of passion, and/or committed while inebriated or under the influence of drugs. Those that commit premeditated murders don't plan on getting caught and expect to avoid punishment altogether. Besides, life without parole is, at least, as great of a deterrent as capital punishment.

"-There is the deterrence in the fact that the murderer or rapist will never do his crime again. There have been a plethora of cases of escaped or released convicts from LWOP, and whom have continued their killing spree until being caught once again. DP would save many potential innocent lives."

Haha, yeah a murderer will never commit a crime again when punished with the death penalty, because he or she is deprived of the life in which crimes can be committed. My opponent appears to be getting back at me for a debate in which I brought up semantics and technicalities and won.

A rapist isn't punished with rape. Following that logic, a murderer should not be punished with murder. See how the "eye for an eye" punishment is so profoundly illogical?

My opponent has established a claim which the onus is on him to prove. If prisoners escaping from prisons was a major issue, here is what I propose: spend the saved funds on the reinforcement of prisons.

Life in prison without possibility of parole is what I'm going at. If such as drastic change was to occur, meaning if the death penalty was to be overturned and superseded by life without parole, this is what should be instated.

"Ways to solve this is to increase the court appointed attorney's salary."
Like I said, in areas where crime is abundant, this is difficult.

4. My argument about the death penalty singling out the poor is not void. With such a fallible law system, an irreversible punishment such as the death penalty should not be instated.

~Contention 1~
Again, you make the misconception that the death penalty is mainly about economic benefit, or deterrence effect, THOUGH those points could be argued. The main reason why a death penalty is instated is not because it's a "solution" to crime, but because it is justice or deontological you could say.

a. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is famously summarized as "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." A crime is a violation of social law, of the society in which the person observes. By committing a murder or another heinous crime, the criminal universalized his action, and thus they lose the right to be members of the society and need to be punished. Kant has two conceptions of crime; private and a social crime. A private crime is like deceiving a person to gain personal goods, while a social crime is like theft or murder. The difference is that social crimes affects society, while private crimes affect a person; though the severity of both are not different. However, for social crimes it is up to society, to government, that this be punished.

b. A crime shouldn't be punished on basis of social benefit, THOUGH one could argue, points such as deterrence are still valid. The main point of death penalty however, should lie in moral absolutism: this is the foundation of human rights. If we were to punish people based on societal benefit, then this could justify punishing innocent people if doing such will benefit society.

c. In a crude interpretation, you could conceive of this argument as an "eye for an eye". By most accounts this is valid, but do remember the notion of retributive justice; the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. The corresponding punishment for murder is the death penalty. The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right to humans; life no matter how bad is more preferable to death (Kant explains this by illustrating the example of suicide). By violating this right, your own right is discarded.

d. A system of laws that fails to punish criminals is weak, and since laws are what create a society, the society in turn is weak. This is why punishment must be dealt out; it would undermine the moral values to not otherwise.

~Contention 2~
Now deriving from my counterargument in contention 1, it is valid to completely discard this economic notion.

1. For the sake of argument, let's say your statistic are correct.

a. Prisoners can and often do kill others in the prison system.

b. 70% of criminals released from prison in California come return to the prison for another offense. [1]

c. When dealing with the DP, extra measures should be taken to ensure accurate rulings.

Remember, my argument from the philosophy of Kant means that arguments from economics are irrelevant. Social benefit isn't the reason for justice. This is the nature of deontological ethics.

"Haha, yeah a murderer will never commit a crime again when punished with the death penalty, because he or she is deprived of the life in which crimes can be committed. My opponent appears to be getting back at me for a debate in which I brought up semantics and technicalities and won."

-I can't see where my opponent is getting at. This point is valid; murders will almost always be murders. Statistics show that released or escaped murders to kill more, and with he advent of the death penalty, this can be solved. YET again, I do want to stress the importance of my first argument; from Kantian ethics. Social benefit is never part of the case.

"A rapist isn't punished with rape. Following that logic, a murderer should not be punished with murder. See how the "eye for an eye" punishment is so profoundly illogical?"

-Right to life is a fundamental liberty of all humans. To break it is to jeopardize your own. Rape can be consolidated in other terms.

~Contention 4 (it should actually be 3)~
Unjust usage of the law does not undermine the death penalties principles. You have failed to show how increasing court appointed attorney's salaries is difficult, and how the law being fallible is relevant to the death penalty's validity. Just because we don't have a perfect or a more ideal system of laws does not mean the DP should not be instated. As it stands right now, it is morally correct.

==> Important Note <==

If my argument with Kantian ethics still stand, then all my opponent's points should be discarded. This is the crux of my argument, and I encourage my opponent to entail his main concern with it. If it remains to be justified by the end of this debate, then things such as economic benefit aren't relevant, as I have explained in Kantian ethics such things are never part of the case.

a. Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is famously summarized as "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." A crime is a violation of social law, of the society in which the person observes. By committing a murder or another heinous crime, the criminal universalized his action, and thus they lose the right to be members of the society and need to be punished. Kant has two conceptions of crime; private and a social crime. A private crime is like deceiving a person to gain personal goods, while a social crime is like theft or murder. The difference is that social crimes affects society, while private crimes affect a person; though the severity of both are not different. However, for social crimes it is up to society, to government, that this be punished."

There are some huge flaws in Kant's philosophy. Kant's categorical imperative states that people should obey the maxims and that this applies to everything. The problem with Kant's deontological philosophy is that it puts all emphasis on actions and not consequences. Meaning, every wrong action is unjustified, no matter what the effect. For example, one of Kant's maxims is that lying is always wrong. Even lying to preserve the well-being of others is unethical, regardless. Also, following the same logic, being the victim of rape is wrong. You are engaging in a morally wrong action. Therefore, you are immoral, you must be ostracized from society.

Yes, I agree that a murderer should be deprived of the liberty to be a part of society, but this can be done with life without parole. Most certainly, killers should be punished for their actions, but the death penalty is not the best option.

"The main point of death penalty however, should lie in moral absolutism: this is the foundation of human rights. If we were to punish people based on societal benefit, then this could justify punishing innocent people if doing such will benefit society."

First off, let's not commit the straw man fallacy. I am not saying that the death penalty should be abolished based solely on societal benefit.

My points are as follows:
The state, by implementing capital punishment, lowers its standard to the mentality of the killer.
In an infallible system, such an irreversible punishment should not be instated.
The death penalty is illogical.
The cost of the death penalty is exorbitant, while life without parole is much cheaper.
The death penalty is not a deterrent.

Secondly, your point about societal benefit is completely moot. I argue that the death penalty should be superseded with life without parole because the cons of capital punishment outweigh the pros.

"By most accounts this is valid, but do remember the notion of retributive justice; the punishment must be proportionate to the crime. The corresponding punishment for murder is the death penalty. The right to life is the most basic and fundamental right to humans; life no matter how bad is more preferable to death (Kant explains this by illustrating the example of suicide). By violating this right, your own right is discarded."

If the corresponding punishment for murder is the death penalty, then, following the same logic, the punishment for rape should be rape. By the same token, the punishment for arson should be ignition of the arsonist's property.

I do not agree that by violating this right, your right to life should be discarded. I argue that by violating this right, your individual rights should be discarded. Theses include the rights to property, the right to liberty, and the right to be a part of society.

"d. A system of laws that fails to punish criminals is weak, and since laws are what create a society, the society in turn is weak. This is why punishment must be dealt out; it would undermine the moral values to not otherwise."

The system does fail to punish its criminal when condemning murderers to life without parole. Capital punishment is a primitive issue and should be eradicated, so we can progress as a nation.

Over 130 countries, as of 2007, have already abolished capital punishment. None of the the western European countries utilize it. Most of these countries are not weak and continue to prosper.

How do you define weak? Japan has instated capital punishment and is militarily weak. North Korea has instated capital punishment and is economically weak.

"a. Prisoners can and often do kill others in the prison system."

With more capital, there is more room for reform. Like I've already stated, the extra funds should be used to fortify prisons and improve conditions. That is why the economic factor is significant in my argument.

"b. 70% of criminals released from prison in California come return to the prison for another offense. [1]"

I'm sorry, I can not find the source you are referring to...
This is a very broad statement. To what does this apply? I am assuming that you mean that, even with life without parole, murderers will be released after 30 or 40 years and commit more crimes?

Anyway, life without possibility of parole is just as permanent as the death penalty.

"c. When dealing with the DP, extra measures should be taken to ensure accurate rulings."

I agree, if the death penalty is to be implemented AT ALL, extra measures SHOULD be taken to ensure accurate rulings. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world.
Some have advantages over others.
Usually, the prosecution's resources are almost limitless.
Juries have biases.

"-I can't see where my opponent is getting at. This point is valid; murders will almost always be murders. Statistics show that released or escaped murders to kill more, and with he advent of the death penalty, this can be solved. YET again, I do want to stress the importance of my first argument; from Kantian ethics. Social benefit is never part of the case."

Following the same logic, we could execute everyone in the United States, everyone with the capacity to kill, so murderers are deterred. This is why, even though it is based completely on technicalities, you point is moot.

"Right to life is a fundamental liberty of all humans. To break it is to jeopardize your own."

No, to break it jeopardizes your own individual rights: right to be among society, liberty, right to property.

"Rape can be consolidated in other terms."

That is why the death penalty is illogical.

"Unjust usage of the law does not undermine the death penalties principles. You have failed to show how increasing court appointed attorney's salaries is difficult, and how the law being fallible is relevant to the death penalty's validity. Just because we don't have a perfect or a more ideal system of laws does not mean the DP should not be instated. As it stands right now, it is morally correct."

Uh...yes it does.

In areas where crime is abundant, it is costly to hire adequate attorneys and to invest adequate funds in individual cases. For that reason, courts appoint attorneys that are ill-trained. In addition, sometimes an attorney is paid less than the minimum wage. Thus, an attorney is unmotivated to devote the 700-1000 hours to a case that are necessary. Also, in adequate funds are authorized for investigation, etc. I'm just regurgitating info I already stated.

With such a fallible system, the death penalty should not be instated because it is irreversible. With life without parole, accused murderers can be proved innocent (during the duration of their lives) and not unjustly executed.

It is morally wrong because it causes us to lower our standards to the mentality of the murderer, etc.

"The problem with Kant's deontological philosophy is that it puts all emphasis on actions and not consequences."

--> Uh, that isn't the problem. That's the very nature of deontology.

Yes, in the case of lying, it would be wrong no matter what. This isn't an argument you are posing, but merely an appeal to the consequences.

The categorical imperative basically states that if you want to do something moral, let the maxim of that action be universalized as a law of nature if you were to do it. So an example would be murder. If you murder someone, then you are making it a universal law of nature for everyone to murder. Obviously, you wouldn't want this on yourself, so you don't murder. In the case of rape, no you would not be considered immoral. You are not the one doing the action, but being acted UPON.

2. Social benefit.

Your points such as "The cost of the death penalty is exorbitant, while life without parole is much cheaper" and "The death penalty is not a deterrent" are points about SOCIAL BENEFIT. They aid the society as a whole. One makes it cheaper for society, and the other prevents murderers from committing murders. These are examples of points based on consequentialism, where the morality of an action is based on its effects.

"Secondly, your point about societal benefit is completely moot. I argue that the death penalty should be superseded with life without parole because the cons of capital punishment outweigh the pros."

It isn't moot. You used social benefits as points. It would be valid if you successfully refute Kant's philosophy. You haven't, and thus you failed.

3. Retributive justice

"If the corresponding punishment for murder is the death penalty, then, following the same logic, the punishment for rape should be rape. By the same token, the punishment for arson should be ignition of the arsonist's property."

--> You miss the point about retributive justice. It isn't about an EQUAL punishment, but a PROPORTIONATE punishment. Rape wouldn't be dealt with rape, but dealt with a harsh punishment. However, you would be correct to ask then why is murder highlighted with the DP (even though not all murder cases go to DP). This is because murder violates the right to life, the essential right to every human being.

"The system does fail to punish its criminal when condemning murderers to life without parole."

Do you concede o.O?

"How do you define weak? Japan has instated capital punishment and is militarily weak. North Korea has instated capital punishment and is economically weak."

--> I define weak as the law being weak. Of not doing it's job properly.

4. Economy

"With more capital, there is more room for reform. Like I've already stated, the extra funds should be used to fortify prisons and improve conditions. That is why the economic factor is significant in my argument."

--> The additional funds won't be that significant, since there aren't many DP cases and DP cases aren't that much more expensive than LWOP cases even if you are correct to say they cost more. We wouldn't gain much. As I've said before, the DP is about morality, not cost-effectiveness.

"This is a very broad statement. To what does this apply? I am assuming that you mean that, even with life without parole, murderers will be released after 30 or 40 years and commit more crimes?"

"I agree, if the death penalty is to be implemented AT ALL, extra measures SHOULD be taken to ensure accurate rulings..."

--> Because it isn't used right doesn't mean its foundations are wrong.

5. Kant again

"Following the same logic, we could execute everyone in the United States, everyone with the capacity to kill, so murderers are deterred. This is why, even though it is based completely on technicalities, you point is moot."

--> The capacity to kill is not an action.

"No, to break it jeopardizes your own individual rights: right to be among society, liberty, right to property."

--> And you haven't shown why that is only so.

"It is morally wrong because it causes us to lower our standards to the mentality of the murderer, etc."

--> And you haven't shown why it's morally wrong to lower our standards to the mentality of the murderer, though of course this isn't true. Our motive is justice, theirs is personal gain.

~Conclusion~

You may have noticed that I skipped some points about economic/social benefits. This is because my opponent has failed on his attack on Kant, and money should never overrule morals. Because he has failed in not only his understanding of the categorical imperative but his attack therefore, I urge for a vote for Con.

lets just sentence them to 24 hours of being kicked in the nuts. they pass out, time stops. soon as they wake up bam a new kick to the nuts. have the kickers line up five in a row so that it's a fresh foot doing the kicking.

The liberal laws legal requirements that make the death penalty so difficult and expensive to carry out should be abolished. They are they only things standing in the way of appropriate and otherwise efficient punishment.

Nope, I changed it to Pro because I wanted to debate about something, and you were looking at my BIG issues thing. So I changed my position to conflict with yours, and tada we are here with me as the devils advocate.

I just found out today that my uncle was actually super smart. He was the 2nd top scorer in all of Taiwan, and got sponsored by the government to go study Philosophy in Germany. His main area was Immanuel Kant (and also Marxism) and that actually sparked my idea as Kant to be the main argument :D